HC Deb 21 March 1950 vol 472 cc1744-6
23. Mr. George Ward

asked the Minister of Pensions why Mr. H. Simpson, of 40, Westcroft Street, Droitwich, reference 11/N/23417, has been refused a reinstatement of his pension, in spite of a medical certificate that his condition results from his service in the Royal Marines.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons)

I am glad to say that following a further review our medical advisers consider that Mr. Simpson's present condition is associated with his war service. We are therefore having him examined by a medical board in order to ascertain the degree of disablement on which to base his pension.

Mr. Ward

Is the Minister aware that Mr. Simpson was not even X-rayed by the pensions board to find out if he had tuberculosis or not? Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that the next time this man appears before the board he is properly examined?

Mr. Simmons

Mr. Simpson applied in May, 1949. His claim was considered by the Director-General of our Department. He is to appear before a medical board for assessment purposes. In his original examination in 1919 he did see a tuberculosis officer.

Mr. Ward

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Simpson was not X-rayed by the naval or medical authorities or by the pensions board?

Mr. Simmons

This case goes back to 1919, and upon it coming to us again in 1945 we gave consideration to it. We have agreed that Mr. Simpson shall go before a medical board, the result of which we must now await.

24. Mr. Marlowe

asked the Minister of Pensions why he has refused to pay the pension due to Mr. T. Jennings, 62, Wordsworth Street, Hove, in respect of the period between his discharge in 1940 and August, 1942, in spite of the fact that the pensions tribunal found in 1943 that his injury was attributable to service.

Mr. Simmons

My right hon. Friend and I have explained the position fully in correspondence with the hon. and learned Member. On a strict interpretation of the terms of the Royal Warrant Mr. Jennings would be entitled to compensation amounting to only £8. In view of the circumstances in his case, however, he was, in fact, paid £48.

Mr. Marlowe

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his correspondence is completely contradictory, that the application was turned down on the basis that no claim was made at the date of discharge, but that since then the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the case was automatically considered without application at the date of discharge? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It must be agreed that there was an application at the date of discharge. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the case again from that point of view?

Mr. Simmons

There was certainly no claim made on the date of discharge. The first claim made by Mr. Jennings was in 1943 and the pensions appeal tribunal in January last confirmed the decision that aggravation had passed away in August, 1943. If the hon. and learned Member would care to see the correspondence I am quite ready to meet and discuss the matter with him. I have been through all the correspondence myself.

Forward to